Fifer, William v. Colvin, Carolyn
Filing
21
ORDER granting 20 Joint Motion to Remand to Social Security. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 4/24/15. (jat)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
WILLIAM FIFER,
Plaintiff,
OPINION & ORDER
v.
14-cv-636-jdp
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
The parties have filed a motion for remand under sentence four of Section 205(g) of the
Social Security Act. The motion will be granted.
On remand, plaintiff William Fifer will be provided the opportunity to submit
additional evidence and arguments, and to appear for a hearing. Additionally, on remand,
the Administrative Law Judge will: (1) proceed through the sequential evaluation process
and determine whether plaintiff had substantial gainful activity during the relevant time
period; (2) reevaluate the entire record, including the treatment history; (3) comply with
Social Security Ruling 96-7p and reevaluate plaintiff’s credibility regarding the nature and
limiting effects of his alleged impairments; (4) weigh all the medical opinions of record, as
well as the opinion of Steven Immerman, MD, dated August 1, 2014; (5) address plaintiff’s
diagnosis of colorectal cancer in 2012 to determine whether that diagnosis was a medically
determinable impairment during the period at issue, and if so consider whether it, alone or
in combination with other determinable impairments, meets or medically equals a listed
impairment, including Listing 13.18; (6) if necessary, reevaluate plaintiff’s residual
functional capacity; (7) if necessary, use Social Security Ruling 13-2p to evaluate whether
alcohol abuse was a material factor to disability; and (8) issue a new decision.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further
action as outlined above.
Entered April 24, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?